mevzuat_ara

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes a read-only search operation and mentions result limiting via 'adet'. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, authentication needs, or return format details beyond the ID and name.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and front-loaded with purpose. It uses a clear structure with explanations and colons. No unnecessary content, but the formatting is slightly informal.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema and low schema coverage, the description adequately explains the tool's role, workflow integration with siblings, and parameter meanings. It could provide more detail on return format but is sufficient for the task.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Input schema has 3 parameters with 0% coverage, but description explains 'nerede' options and 'adet' meaning (max result count 1-50). The 'ifade' parameter is implied as the search query but not explicitly described.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool searches for laws (KANUN) on mevzuat.gov.tr and returns matching laws and their IDs. It differentiates from sibling tools (madde_getir, kanun_metni_getir) by explaining that the returned mevzuat_id can be used with them.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear guidance: 'Kanunun numarasını bilmiyorsan önce bunu çağır' (if you don't know the law number, call this first) and explains how to use results. It also describes parameter choices for 'nerede' and 'adet'. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., when law number is known).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.